hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group (Merriam-Webster)
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
transitive verb: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source (Merriam-Webster)
Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-'Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Se'mitic a. (Oxford English Dictionary)
The action or practice of taking someone else's work, idea, etc., and passing it off as one's own; literary theft. (Oxford English Dictionary)
On the QA board at LumenGentleman, a man called "Bill", a long-time Sungenis supporter, submitted a question concerning Bob's anti-Semitism. After going back and forth with Bill a few times, I took the discussion off-line into private emails with Bill. He asked for proof of Bob's anti-Semitism, and I sent him 16 points to get him started.
Apparently Bill is serving as Bob's carrier pigeon, because he later submitted another QA at my web site, this time under a misleading name ("JJ"), asking me about my alleged Jewish ancestry. Bill later admitted to me that Bob put him up to this, even though he had reservations about doing so (he wrote to Bob later, "Something, although I don't know what, made me hesitate to ask Jacob whether he had Jewish ancestors. But I asked him anyhow because you wanted me to do that").
Did you catch that? Bob Sungenis employed a Nazi tactic, using this gentleman as a stool-pigeon for the purpose of possibly "outing" a Jew. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud. Indeed, contrary to his claims, Bob Sungenis continues to give hard evidence that he would have been quite comfortable living under the Third Reich.
After I sent Bill the 16 points I had used to outline documented instances of Bob's anti-Semitism, he forwarded my email to Bob, and Bob has taken it upon himself to publish both my email and his responses on his web site (Jacob Michael: Still Confused and Calumniating - yet another in the Confused and Calumniating series; at least Bob hasn't lost his creative edge, eh?). As a side note, I am not surprised that Bob did not disclose the fact that he pressured Bill, against Bill's conscience, to play the part of a stool-pigeon in helping Bob to conduct his Jew-hunt. Perhaps Bob learned these tactics of persuasion during the years when he was enjoying a "successful sales career" (cf. Surprised by Truth, p. 109) - which is, of course, the same explanation he hypocritically tried to pin on Michael Forrest ("Michael is an insurance agent by profession, and he knows how to convince people of what he wants to sell them", Michael Forrest and the Jews, p. 11; this statement is misleading anyway - Forrest is a manager by trade and education).
This isn't the first time a supporter of Bob's has drawn someone into a conversation, only to turn it over to Bob in the end. Others of Bob's supporters have done the same thing; Edgar Suter, for example, drew Leon Suprenant into a dialogue about Bob which he then forwarded along to Bob, and Bob promptly inserted himself into the discussion and published the results on his web site. This is nothing new, in other words.
Now, Bill was certainly free to share my private emails with Bob. That's how the electronic communications privacy laws work. However, given Bob's repeated tirades about how my usage of his private emails constitutes a violation of privacy and the breaking of civil law, his behavior here is rather curious. It just underscores again that he operates according to a double standard. And while I won't be threatening to sue Bob for invasion of privacy, I will say that I expect him to either 1) retract his allegations of invasion of privacy against me, or 2) admit that he is now guilty of the same thing he accused me of doing. I wonder which option he will choose? (hint: "he'll ignore both" is the right answer)
The nice thing about the fact that Bob has inserted himself into my private discussion with Bill is that I now have a chance to show the full documentation behind those 16 points (contrary to Bob's statement, "He gave Bill 17 reasons" - alas, it seems Bob has once again dispensed himself from the obligation to read carefully, and cannot be bothered with even the most basic details), and thus make the case for Bob's anti-Semitism that much stronger.
In the past five years, Bob has:
1) Said that the Jews are an "inherently violent" people
R. Sungenis: Where did I say it? Chapter and verse, please. This is Mr. Michael's usual innuendo approach.
Here it is:
Christianity is certainly not inherently violent, but unfortunately, Judaism tends to be, because real Judaism considers all non-Jews goyim that are less than animals, and this precipitates a loathing and violence against non-Jews. (QA, January 2006, q. 8)
2) Said that the Jews intend to rule the world
R. Sungenis: Some Jews intend to rule the world.
Suddenly Bob wants to introduce a distinction: "some Jews intend to rule the world." But this has not been his claim in the past. Here are his words:
"The Jews ... do intend to rule the world. And now the problem is that they want to rule the Catholic Church, too." (QA, November 2006, q. 47)
No distinctions, no qualifications.
3) Said that Disney movies used to be more wholesome, because Disney had a policy of not hiring Jews - the Jews are to blame for the moral decline
R. Sungenis: And where in this is the charge of "anti-semitism" substantiated?
Notice: no denial that he did, in fact, say this about the Jews. Point conceded again.
4) Said that FDR's Jewish ancestry was his motivation for conspiring to allow the events at Pearl Harbor to happen
R. Sungenis: No, I said that FDR's Jewish ancestry made him sympathetic to Jewish causes.
Yes, and according to Bob, FDR's sympathy "to Jewish causes" includes the fact that he purposely allowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor, precisely because of his sympathy "to Jewish causes":
Earlier in 1933, he had given 200 million dollars to the Russians, who were mostly Jewish Bolsheviks. Roosevelt brought America into World War II by allowing Pearl Harbor to take place, for he had known way in advance that the Japanese were planning to attack. (Sungenis, Uncorking the Erroneous Teachings, False Allegations and Liberal Agenda of William Cork)
Keep in mind that Bob's claims regarding FDR on this point concern the fact that FDR was only partially Jewish, that he had some Jewish ancestry in his distant past. I suppose that if it could be shown that General Custer had some Indian ancestry in his distant past, this would be enough to explain the defeat at Little Big Horn as well?
5) Said that the Jews are behind JFK's assassination
R. Sungenis: No, I said that there is evidence that SOME Jews were INVOLVED in the JFK assassination, but Mr. Michael's game is to make it sound as if I believe the Jews, as a race of people, hated JFK and wanted to kill him.
Here we go:
Incidentally, Edgar Bronfman is also the head of the World Jewish Congress, one of the most powerful Zionist groups in the world. We also know through the exhaustive effort of Michael Collins Piper's new 738-page book, Final Judgment, how Bronfman is implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The story begins when Kennedy refused to capitulate to Israel's demand for nuclear weapons. (Sungenis, Neo-Cons and the Jewish Connection)
Note: it's not just Bronfman - it is Bronfman as a member of a world-leading Zionist group. Notice also that Bob writes in his original statement, "we also know", not simply "there is evidence". As he has been his M.O. lately, Bob continues to try to water down the confidence with which he once made his claims (hence his ubiquitous use of phrases such as "I simply said", or "I merely claimed").
6) Treated Jewish converts as dishonest infiltrators who have are operating according to schemes to destroy the Church
R. Sungenis: Notice the hateful language Mr. Michael uses to describe it. That makes for good demagoguery, and he is an expert at it. I never used that terminology at all.
The written record shows otherwise.
From Bob's letter to Culture Wars (written before he had read Schoeman's book): "If we really want to be honest about what Catholic tradition and Scripture say about Schoeman's predictions, the evidence is, at best, divided."
Michael Forrest emailed Bob about this in April of 2004 and asked him to clarify: "I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but by saying "we" and "honest", this sentence appears to question the honesty and integrity of those who see things differently than you on this subject."
Bob would have none of it: "No, I do mean "honest." Of the people I have dealt with on this subject, they form a deliberate animosity when someone like myself is trying to give the other side of the story." (email of April 2, 2004)
As David Palm concluded: "Without having read Schoeman's book or spoken to him, Sungenis already knows that Schoeman is dealing dishonestly with the evidence. In his mind, any opposition to his conclusions stems from a 'deliberate animosity'." (Palm, Sources, Schoeman, and the Credibility of Bob Sungenis [Part 2, Section 1])
But not only do I contend that Moss and Schoeman are reintroducing a modern-day Judaizing theology, I would go so far as to say that it is a hyper-Judaizing theology. This is especially the case with Roy Schoeman, as he has outlined his case in his book, Salvation is from the Jews. . . . it is not merely "Judaizing," it is "hyper-Judaizing." Even the Judaizers of St. Paul's day didn't attempt to do what Mr. Schoeman is doing. (Sungenis, The theology of Jewish Converts Roy Schoeman and David Moss, emphasis added)
Destroying the Church
We even have Jewish converts to Catholicism today, like Roy Schoeman and David Moss, who propagate these same sentiments by claiming that the Old Covenant is still in force, and that the Jews are going to take over Palestine under divine mandate and offer sacrifices in Jerusalem again, and all this in fulfillment, they claim, by the words of Jesus Christ. This is total nonsense, and it is one of the most pernicious and nefarious heresies the Church has ever faced. (Q&A, March 2006, q. 16, emphasis added)
Sungenis's own words stand against him. He has said that Roy Schoeman (a Jewish convert) is dishonest, is infiltrating the Church with hyper-judaizing theology, and is threatening to bring the Church down with "one of the most pernicious and nefarious heresies the Church has ever faced."
7) Routinely posted material from neo-Nazi and White Supremacist web sites
R. Sungenis: This is just another case of Mr. Michael continuing his sin of slander and innuendo. I have explained this about a dozen times, but Mr. Michael refuses to listen. Five years ago I mistakenly quoted from a Nazi website because I didn't know it was a Nazi website ... I have since apologized for that and there has never been a time since then that I have made the same mistake.
Not true. In the past five years, Sungenis has used Hoffman, Piper, Counterpunch, Pike, Mohr, Dilling, Ley, National Vanguard, Institute for Historical Review, Shamir, et al. This is all documented at www.sungenisandthejews.com.
8) Attributed a bogus quote to Einstein
R. Sungenis: No, the quote was two sentences from Einstein's paper that were separated by ellipses. The words were said by Einstein and no one else.
Here is a challenge I proposed to Mark Wyatt at the Envoy forum, which he failed to respond to. Let's see if Bob does any better:
I have not looked at [the Einstein quote] in depth, but it appears to come from the true quote, and Bob still stands behind it. I know that Forrest feels it is misconstrued.
Unacceptable, Mark. Ante up or fold your cards. Here is the quote exactly as Bob has given it to us:
"Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world...the root cause is their use of enemies they create to keep solidarity."
This quote appears currently at CAI in no less than three separate articles and one QA.
Here are the actual, scanned pages of the magazine in which the quote is purported to appear (which, by the way, is not the source Bob used, per his own admission):
Read those pages Mark, and then come back here and tell me: which page(s) does this quote appear on?
I will be interested in hearing Bob's response, if, that is, he doesn't do what Mark Wyatt did and simply ignore the challenge.
Furthermore, Mr. Michael never deals with the lecherous life of the Zionist, Albert Einstein. He just ignores it like it never happened, yet I have documented it in clear and concise words. See my paper at ( http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/personal_lives.htm)
I wasn't aware that delving into the personal moral life of one's ideological opponent was a legitimate approach to debate. Is Bob hereby giving me his approval to begin delving into his own personal moral life as part of my criticisms of him?
9) Attributed a bogus quote to Roy Schoeman
R. Sungenis: No one has proven that it was "bogus." But leave it to Mr. Michael to ignore the fact that even though I did not obtain the proof I demanded from Mr. Schoeman, I took down the quote as a measure of good will to him, and told him so. This is just more of Mr. Michael's sinful slander.
"No one has proven that it was 'bogus'"?! Apparently Bob has a backward view when it comes to making accusations: in his world, an accusation can be made (even if not verified), and then that accusation must be allowed to stand until it is proven false! Let's apply this standard to Bob, shall we? I have reason to believe that Bob Sungenis is a homosexual, and in fact, a friend of mine copied down a quote from one of Bob's talks wherein Bob admitted that he struggles with homosexual tendencies. Now, since no one has proven that claim is false, or that my friend's "quote" is bogus, I suppose Bob will have no problem if I let that claim stand?
Somehow I think Bob will suddenly recover a sense of justice and fairness when it is cast in those terms.
As for Bob's magnanimous gesture of "good will" in removing the bogus (yes, bogus) quote, his gesture loses some of its allure in light of what he said about Roy in the process. But this will be dealt with in the next point:
10) Accused Roy Schoeman of secretly altering the quote in order to make Bob look bad.
R. Sungenis: No, I never accused Mr. Schoeman of altering the quote. I said that it is a possibility that someone altered the quote.
Wrong again. Here is what Bob wrote in one of his many "revised" editions of his article David Palm: Confused and Calumniating (ironic title, isn't it?):
All I can say is that both these quotes will stay together until I get to the bottom of this story, and that may take some time. Either someone doctored the quote before they sent it to me, or the original version that Schoeman wrote was changed by either Schoeman or AHC before it was put on the AHC website, or there was a separate "Newsletter" that was distinct from what AHC has on their website. ("Palm", p. 8, emphasis added)
Bob only names one specific name here: Schoeman.
11) Implied that the real reason why I, Michael Forrest, and David Palm have opposed him is because we have Jewish ancestry that we are hiding
R. Sungenis: No, Mr. Michael is lying again. I merely stated the fact that several of my opponents base their antagonism of me upon their tribal loyalty to their Jewish heritage. That being the case, I wanted to know if Mr. Michael, Mr. Forrest and Mr. Palm also had tribal loyalty to Jewish heritage that they were not revealing. So far, all three of them have refused to answer the question.
Here we go again with the "I merely" statements. I'll take the words above as a concession of the point. Bob's long-winded explanation above is exactly as I said it was: he thinks that the reason we're opposing him is because of "tribal loyalty to their Jewish heritage", and he finds it significant that "all three of them have refused to answer the question." Thanks for the admission. And just to be perfectly clear, Bob did far more than "merely" ask about our ancestry ("I wanted to know ...") - he insinuated it, and accused us of hiding it:
Mr. Palm, Mr. Michael and Mr. Forrest have all admitted, in one form or another, that they are coming from the supposition of being sympathetic to the Jews at large and the nation state of Israel. Whether these three men have ethnic ties to the Jews, I don't know, but I suspect that one or more of them do but they are not admitting it. (Sungenis, David Palm: Still Confused and Calumniating, p. 4, emphasis added)
On that score, let me repeat what I wrote in my QA a few days ago when Bill asked me about my Jewish ancestry (again, under pressure from Bob, in order to "out" me as a Jew):
If you actually believe that one's ethnicity plays a critical role in the issues surrounding Sungenis and anti-Semitism, then you should start by asking Bob about his Italian heritage - nay, his Sicilian heritage (read: Mafia). Maybe Bob has ancestral ties to Mussolini, and maybe this would explain why Bob has such an animosity for the Jews. Perhaps his Sicilian blood makes him genetically prone to anti-Semitism. Does that sound reasonable?
Of course it doesn't, Bill, because it's a stupid line of reasoning, and an incredibly specious one at that. Bob himself would be the first to tell you as much, the second you started questioning him about his Italian blood and suggesting that this is why he has such an animus towards the Jews. Unfortunately, his stubbornness blinds him to this reality, and so he continues to act as though my ancestry (and Michael Forrest's, and David Palm's, and Ben Douglass's) means something in this debate.
12) Accepted as definitive and authoritative the witness of only two or three Church Fathers when they said that Anti Christ would be a Jew
R. Sungenis: No, never did that. I merely mentioned that these Fathers held such a view and used it as support for the possibility that it may indeed happen that way. I never said their views were "definitive or authoritative." Chapter and verse, Mr. Michael?
Again with the "merely"? No, Bob did more than "merely mention" this assertion. Here is the "chapter and verse" he requests:
I believe that the AntiChrist will be of Jewish extraction and will reside in Israel and seek to set up temple worship. Many of the Fathers and Medievals saw this as well. (QA, July 2004, q. 11)
From Bob's "Many of the Fathers and Medievals", we then arrive at what he calls the "unofficial declaration" of the Church:
In fact, not only has Catholic tradition denied the Chiliast/Zionist interpretations of Scripture, it has unofficially declared that the future Antichrist will be of Jewish extraction. (Sungenis, Neo-Conservatism and the Evangelical/Protestant Connection)
Let it be said that this point alone says nothing about Bob's anti-Semitism. I am not saying that the position of the Fathers on this issue is an anti-Semitic position. Rather, Bob's anti-Semitism emerges when this point is joined to the next point: that he also rejects the witness of the Fathers when they speak of Israel's future conversion. To make it clear: he accepts the witness of just a few Fathers when the issue surrounds something negative about the Jews, but challenges the witness of dozens of Fathers when the issue is something positive about the Jews.
13) Rejected the witness of literally dozens and dozens of Church Fathers when they said that the Jews will one day convert to Christ
R. Sungenis: No, I didn't reject it. I merely said that there was no consensus among them because some of them had varying opinions.
And once again, Bob "merely said". Notice how Bob consistently tries to soft-pedal the certainty with which he made his claims, once he is called on the carpet for them. Where the majority of Fathers speak of a future conversion of the Jews, often specifically referencing Romans 11, Bob rejects their witness on this issue, as well as their interpretation of Romans 11, and arrogantly offers his own corrective exegesis:
St. Paul and the rest of Scripture teach that the "hardening" upon the larger part of Jewry will persist right up until the Last Day when Christ returns. Suffice it to say, St.Paul does not teach that there will be a separate program of salvation or a massive conversion of the Jews. The whole context of Romans 11 speaks only of a "remnant" of Jews that will become saved, and the rest will remain hardened (cf. Rm 9:18-32; 11:5-23). (Sungenis, Roy Schoeman, the Jews, and the Old Covenant, p. 31, emphasis added)
His estimation of his own exegetical skills is so inflated that he does not hesitate to make such condescending comments as, "Not knowing Hebrew, Chrysostom and Augustine often end up in unsupported exegesis by relying only on the LXX" (Sungenis, Intense Dialogue), "the fact remains that Chrysostom did not know Hebrew, and therefore couldn't even know what the original said" (ibid), and "neither Jerome, Cyril or Chrysostom give a thorough exegesis of the passages in question (Romans 11:25-26). In fact, Chrysostom incorrectly turns the Greek "houtos" in Romans 11:26 from its function as an adverb modifying how Israel will be saved into a future time element for the salvation." (Sungenis, Judaizers in the Catholic Church) This last claim is especially audacious, given that St. John Chrysostom's native tongue was Greek.
14) Said that rich Jews financed the Holocaust, agreeing to the death of millions of their own, all in order to be able to one day use the Holocaust as a political tool in getting their land back
R. Sungenis: I said it was one possibility, according to the documented evidence presented in various books written on the subject. Has Mr. Michael read any of these books or has he refuted any of the allegations with factual evidence of his own?
Here are Bob's own words on the subject: "the Jews had a stranglehold on European finance and banking for many years. There are some stories, however, that suggest these Jewish banking familes actually helped Hitler in his quest, since their objective was to ellicit world-wide sympathy so as to migrate European and Russian Jews to Palestine, their long-sought goal which they have, indeed, accomplished." (email of February 14, 2005)
Let's put this in a context that Bob will understand. Did I mention that I have heard "some stories" that "suggest" that Bob Sungenis is a pedophile? Now, I'm not saying it's the truth, or that you have to believe it. I'm "merely" saying that this is "one possibility." Has Bob "refuted" this allegation "with factual evidence of his own?" (No, I'm not really suggesting that Bob is a pedophile - I am demonstrating the impact and ramifications of the way he utilizes this kind of innuendo and insinuation).
15) Defended as legitimate the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
R. Sungenis: Wrong again. I said I didn't know whether they were legitimate or not, since I have not done a thorough investigation into the issue.
David Palm asserted in Sungenis and the Jews: Sources, Schoeman, and Sungenis that "as early as 1921 the Protocols had been conclusively shown to be a forgery by the London Times." He followed this statement with a link to a Wikipedia article that contained the necessary proof of his claim. Bob's response to this statement was to ignore the evidence (probably he didn't even bother to look at it), to accuse Palm of having a closed mind, and to state that the Jews would like us to believe they are forged. Here are his words:
All we know for sure is that there is a battle between one side and the other of whether the Protocols are forged. Mr. Palm thinks that just because he asserts they are forged, the case is closed. It is not, by any stretch. All it shows is that Mr. Palm has a closed mind on the issue. Are the Protocols forged? I don't know. What I do know is that there is a lot of reason to believe that there are certain people, yes, the Jews, who would like us all to believe that they are forged. (Sungenis, My Response to David Palm's "Sungenis and the Jews: Sources, Schoeman, and Sungenis", p. 16)
Bob can try to hide all he wants behind his shoulder-shrugging "I don't know", but this is about as convincing as his statement that he "doesn't know" whether the bogus quote he pinned on Schoeman is really bogus. We've already seen Bob's thought pattern: if you can't prove it's false, or even if you can prove it's false but he decides not to read the evidence, then he can continue to claim it as true.
To make the point clearer: David demonstrated the illegitimacy of the Protocols. Bob quickly and vehemently took him to task for it. While Bob wants to once again soft-pedal and say "I said I didn't know whether they were legitimate or not", his words above show that he said much more than that. He played the innuendo game again and insinuated that, because "the Jews would like us to believe they are forged", this is reason enough to defend their legitimacy. David took up a position against the Protocols, and Bob opposed him.
16) Plagiarized from neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other sources
R. Sungenis: This was already explained above, but let me say more. There was one instance, five years ago, in which I copied and pasted material for an article I wrote. I rearranged the wording so that I did not quote directly from the source, but Mr. Cork (who admits his family is Jewish) accused me of plagiarism, even though I denied the charge.
"One instance"? Just "five years ago"? Hardly. Bob has plagiarized from several different sources, on several different occasions, including Ley (a Nazi), Mohr (a White Supremacist), Fr. Fahey, Vennari, Weber, Pike, the Journal of Historical Review, a bogus quote in Galileo Was Wrong attributed to Truesdell, a bogus quote attributed to Einstein, a bogus quote attributed to John Paul II, a bogus quote attributed to Christopher Blosser, and a bogus quote attributed to Ariel Sharon. He has repeatedly copied material from other people's work and used it without any attribution whatsoever, thus making it appear as though the work was his own.
This is plagiarism, and none of Bob's denials of this fact or attempts to redefine "plagiarism" will change this fact. Merriam-Webster defines "plagiarize" as follows: "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source." David Palm has documented that this very thing has been going on at least up until January 2007 (the most recent example being the "12 points" of anti-Semitism which he lifted from Ted Pike, again without attribution). This is far more than "one instance" which took place "five years ago."
Here's an interesting exercise for the reader: visit Bob's web site today and count the number of "news alerts" that Bob has posted without attribution, which makes it appear as though the work is his. Visit Bob's web site today and count the number of "Book Recommendations" that Bob has copied and pasted from Amazon.com or the Barnes & Noble web site, without attribution, which makes it appear as though he wrote the reviews himself. No, Bob's problem with plagiarism is not limited to just "one instance" from "five years ago" - it's an ongoing problem, today, here and now.
The most voluminous example of this was his plagiarism of sixteen paragraphs of Jack Mohr's book The Effects of the Talmud on Judeo-Christianity, which has been documented here. To this day, Bob has refused to even admit that what he engaged in here was true plagiarism. Sixteen paragraphs of plagiarized work says otherwise.
This was a private article which I had no intentions of publishing on the open market. Had I plans to publish it on the open market, every statement would have been properly footnoted and with a bibliography, as is the case with every book I have ever written.
No, it was a public article posted on his web site, and thousands upon thousands of people saw it. Let's not forget, either, that this web site is the source of Bob's livelihood - as he has so often reminded us. Therefore, everything that goes up on his site is both public and for profit - which is precisely "publishing on the open market." Regardless, Bob simply and conveniently absolves himself of the responsibility to use proper attribution; apparently, if it's just a "private article," even if only in his own eyes, plagiarizing is acceptable.
In fact, I am noted in the scholarly world for voluminous footnotes and bibliographies in my books because I take great pride and care in giving people the actual words and sources for all my material in case they want to look it up themselves. But leave it to a sinful slanderer like Jacob Michael to distort all this and make people think that I am a practicing plagiarist!
All the more reason, then, to make the charge: Bob apparently knows what the standards are, and has gone to great lengths to respect those standards in the past. Thus, it must said again, when the issue is criticizing the Jews, Bob ignores the standards and does the copy-and-paste routine with reckless abandon. If he knows the standards, why does he dispense with them when writing against the Jews? Prejudice, predisposition to accept anti-Jewish claims without verification, bigotry, animus, hostility toward the Jews - in a word, anti-Semitism.
Protestant evangelicalism, from which Mr. Michael originates, holds to the same standards - if you don't accept that God will convert the last generation of Jews, and if you do not believe that the nation state of Israel is a God-ordained movement of prophecy, then they regard you as anti-semitic. Mr. Michael carried that baggage over to Catholicism when he converted, and you can see it all over his writings.
There he goes again with the unsubstantiated and completely inaccurate charges. Perhaps Bob should have asked me about what my former Protestant beliefs were before he leveled this new reckless accusation. The God-ordained status of the nation state of Israel certainly wasn't among those beliefs, so it's difficult to imagine how I could have "carried that baggage over to Catholicism" when I converted. However, since what Bob has alleged here has not been verified, it's as good as true - right?
No, I never said Schoeman was "a Jew first and Catholic second." I said that Roy Schoeman, a Jewish convert, is teaching false things about the Catholic faith about which any good Catholic should be alarmed.
Au contraire. Here, once again, are Bob's own words:
Suffice it to say, Mr. Schoeman is on a mission ... This is not about "ethnic" acceptance of Jews, but about Schoeman's attempt to revise Catholic theology for the sake of the Jews. (Sungenis, The theology of Jewish Converts Roy Schoeman and David Moss, emphasis added)
After reading Mr. Schoeman's book, Salvation is from the Jews," I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Schoeman's so-called seeking for a "Jewish corporate identity" is nothing but a smoke screen for a much larger agenda he has in mind. (ibid, emphasis added)
Roy Schoeman, for example, although he comes across as a sincere Catholic convert, his book, Salvation is from the Jews: The Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming (Ignatius Press, 2003) is one of the most audacious attempts at promoting the Zionist agenda ever written. (Sungenis, Genesis and the Jewish Connection, Part 1, emphasis added)
And, once and for all, I suggest my critics start listening to what I am saying about the anti-Christ, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian influence that various Jewish organizations are having on us, including but not limited to ... the Association of Hebrew Catholics ( e.g., David Moss, Roy Schoeman, etc.), and any other such organization that puts Jewish political, religious and social interests above those of the Catholic faith and the rest of the world. (Sungenis, Christopher Blosser and the Catholic ADL, p. 5, emphasis added)
Yes, Bob most certainly has accused Roy Schoeman of being a Jew first, and a Catholic second.
Mr. Forrest tried to do the same with Hosea 3:5. The fact is that Roy Schoeman's interpretation of Scripture is much closer to Protestant Dispensationalism (Mr. Michael's former Protestant playground) than it is to Haydock and Orchard.
This has been documented several times, so I don't know why Bob continues to play fast and loose with the facts. Schoeman interpreted Hos. 3:5 as a reference to the Second Coming of Christ and the future conversion of the Jews, and Bob accused him of trying to "confiscate [this passage] for Zionism" (Sungenis, Judaizers in the Catholic Church). The problem is that the Haydock Bible gives the exact same interpretation of Hos. 3:5 as Schoeman gave - Bob has just failed to recognize the implications of this. Logically, if Schoeman's interpretation was particularly Zionist, then so was Haydock's - because they interpret the verse the same way. For that matter, if Bob sees a belief in the future conversion of the Jews as a particularly Zionist position, what does that mean for Bob's admission that "At best there is a prevalent opinion in the early Church that the last generation of Jews might be saved en masse" (Sungenis, I'm Mad and I'm Not Going to Take it Anymore, p. 19)? For once, it would be nice to see Bob simply admit his error, and retract it.
I'm not holding my breath.